Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 8

Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 8







Updated excerpt from Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom

Available Here

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

In the course of the recent article series I have written regarding Codex Alimentarius and its position on Genetically Modified (GM) food, I have criticized both the “risk assessment” method of GM food evaluation as well as the official position of Codex Alimentarius in regards to the “substantial equivalence” standards. I have also written about the very real possibility of the introduction of new allergens and antibiotic resistant bacteria into the general food supply.

However, up to this point, all of the problems with the Codex Guidelines
mentioned have been in relation to the section of the Codex GM position document known as “Foods Derived From Modern Biotechnology,” which focuses on GM plants.

There are, accordingly, two more sections - one dealing with GM Micro-Organisms and the other dealing with GM animals.

However, while it may seem that the majority of
criticism expressed thus far focuses more attention on the first section
(GM plants), the fact is that all three sections are very similar in
their language and directives, with only a few changes in the wording
made to apply to the new topic.


In many of these sections the language is word for word, copied and
pasted to reiterate the same purpose as the first section. Therefore, I
will not repeat my criticisms of the second and third sections that have
appeared in my criticism of the GM Plants section. Suffice to say that
all of the problems existing in the GM Plant section exist in the GM
Micro-Organism and GM Animal sections as well, namely those of
questionable scientific practices, the ignoring of relevant data, and so
on. This claim is easily verifiable by reading the Guidelines document
cited in the footnotes.

With that said, some attention should be paid to the section entitled,
“Guideline For The Conduct Of Food Safety Assessment Of Foods Produced
Using Recombinant-DNA Micro-Organisms.” This section deals mainly with
bacteria, yeasts, and certain types of fungi in their uses in food
production.

While making many of the same admissions present in the GM plant
Guidelines, one of the most startling statements made regarding GM
micro-organisms is the admission that they can in fact survive
digestion.

Codex says, “In some processed foods, they [GM micro-organisms] can
survive processing and ingestion and can compete and, in some cases, be
retained in the intestinal environment for significant periods of
time.”[1]

While
this statement is not revolutionary, it is quite surprising to see it
uttered by Codex Alimentarius, an organization that seems to go to great
lengths to approve GM products.

Nevertheless, the fact that these micro-organisms can survive digestion
is extremely important to the GMO safety debate. So are the questions of
rDNA retention in the intestinal tract, the potential for changing the
intestinal flora of those consuming the GM product, and the subsequent
effects on the immune system.

These are all concerns that Codex tacitly admits the existence of,
simply by acknowledging the need to test them.[2] Yet the tendency of GM
micro-organisms to survive digestion and begin to change the makeup of
the human intestines is mentioned later, in a footnote, where it is
stated quite openly,
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Permanent life-long colonization by ingested
micro-organisms is rare. Some orally administered micro-organisms have
been recovered in feces or in the colonic mucosa weeks after feeding
ceased. Whether the genetically modified micro-organism is established
in the gastrointestinal tract or not, the possibility remains that it
might influence the microflora or the mammalian host.[3]</blockquote>It
should be noted that the idea that “life-long colonization by ingested
micro-organisms is rare”[4] is highly contested by many independent
scientists.[5] Yet, even if one were to assume the truth of Codex’s
statement, the fact that it is rare means that it is still possible.
More importantly, the statement admits that, even without long-term
residence in the intestinal tract, there is still the distinct
possibility that it will still significantly affect the intestinal flora
and likewise the host itself.

Still more obviously biased concerns exist in the subsection dealing
with the information that should be provided on each of the DNA
modifications or micro-organisms. This information is, for the most
part, very basic. It contains such data as which genes are added, the
number of insertion sites, etc. However, two sources of information that
are required to be included cause some concern.

The first is the inclusion of the “identification of any open reading
frames within inserted DNA or created by the modifications to contiguous
DNA in the chromosome or in a plasmid, including those that could
result in fusion proteins.”[6]

The second is the “particular reference to any sequences known to
encode, or to influence the expression of, potentially harmful
functions.”[7]

Yet, both of these expressions (fusion proteins and genes that express
harmful functions) are considered potentially dangerous even under the
weak Codex standards. These expressions refer to the ability of some
proteins to fuse with other proteins of the same and other species,
mutating the DNA of the species, or forcing it to produce potentially
adverse effects. Neither of these characteristics should be present in
food, yet Codex mandates only that they be reported, not removed, as a
result of the testing. This appears to be a continual thread of Codex’s
Guidelines.

Thus, Codex continues by saying that additional information should be provided
<blockquote class="tr_bq">to demonstrate whether the arrangement of the
modified genetic material has been conserved or whether significant
rearrangements have occurred after the introduction to the cell and
propagation of the recombinant strain to the extent needed for its
use(s) in food production, including those that may occur during its
storage according to current techniques;[8]</blockquote>as well as
<blockquote class="tr_bq">to demonstrate whether deliberate
modifications made to the amino acid sequence of the expressed protein
result in changes in its post-translational modification or affect sites
critical for its structure or function;[9]</blockquote>While reporting
information related to the instances above might seem like a good idea
(and certainly few would argue that it isn’t), simple reporting is not
enough. Indeed, these issues, as well as the others mentioned in this
section of the Guidelines, are related directly to the question of the
stability of genetically modified organisms. This is mentioned briefly
in this section of the Guidelines, most notably in a footnote where it
says,
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Microbial genes are more fluid than those of
higher eukaryotes; that is, the organisms grow faster, adapt to changing
environments, and are more prone to change. Chromosomal rearrangements
are common. The general genetic plasticity of micro-organisms may affect
recombinant DNA in micro-organisms and must be considered in evaluating
the stability of recombinant DNA micro-organisms.[10]</blockquote>It
is clear that GM organisms are often dangerously unstable. Many of them
carry genes that overproduce a certain characteristic, cannot be turned
off, or simply begin to change even after it has been bonded to the new
strain of DNA.

Yet, with all of these admissions by Codex as to the dangers that GM
micro-organisms pose to those who consume them as well as the fact that
GM DNA is often unpredictable, the Codex Guidelines recommendations for
testing suggest that these micro-organisms should be assessed based upon
tests conducted on the conventional counterpart, not the micro-organism
itself.

If tests conclude that the questionable micro-organisms are removed or
rendered non-toxic in their individual and natural states, then
“viability and residence of micro-organisms in the alimentary system
need no examination.”[11]

Embodying the impracticality and unscientific methodology of substantial
equivalence in this context, Codex does not take into account the
various potential dangers that it mentioned just a few short paragraphs
previous.

Even on the question of antibiotic resistance, Codex takes the position
of ignoring sound science in terms of its allowance of antibiotic
resistant genes to be used as recipient organisms. It says,
<blockquote class="tr_bq">In general, traditional strains of
micro-organisms developed for food processing uses have not been
assessed for antibiotic resistance. Many micro-organisms used in food
production possess intrinsic resistance to specific antibiotics. Such
properties need not exclude such strains from consideration as
recipients in constructing recombinant-DNA micro-organisms.[12]</blockquote>Although
Codex does suggest that transmissible antibiotic resistant genetic
strains should not be used, it clearly states that they should not be
removed from consideration for use. This does little to ease the
concerns related to antibiotic resistance in general. This is because,
as mentioned earlier, any gene that is inserted into another organism
via genetic modification is inherently unstable. Not only that, but this
process creates the potential to destabilize other genes as well. So
the possibility still exists even when not using what is considered a
“transmissible” gene. Codex, of course, does not address this issue. It
merely suggests that these antibiotic resistant genes not be removed
from consideration as potential transfers and recipients.

The final mention of Codex’s treatment of GM micro-organisms revolves
around some of the testing methods used to determine the potential of
allergenicity – Sequence Homology and Pepsin Resistance testing. With
the exception of the specific serum tests mentioned earlier (the more
reliable form of testing when adequately provided for), these are the
only two methods mentioned for determining potential micro-organism
allergens.

The problem with both of these methods is that they are insufficiently
geared to the task. By Codex’s own admission, Sequence Homology only
assesses “the extent to which a newly expressed protein is similar in
structure to a known allergen,” not whether the protein actually is an
allergen.[13]

But
even this limited testing ability is challenged by the fact that the
test can only be conducted by using sequences of allergens that are
already known and available in scientific literature and public
databases.[14] The document also says, “There are also limitations in
the ability of such comparisons to detect non-contiguous epitopes
capable of binding themselves specifically with IgE antibodies.”[15]

Therefore, the Pepsin Resistance test is just as problematic as Sequence
Homology because, as Codex admits, “a lack of resistance to pepsin does
not exclude that the newly expressed protein can be a relevant
allergen.”[16]

Because several food allergens have demonstrated a resistance to pepsin
digestion, it was conceived that this method of testing would be useful
for determining potential food allergens. However, this is obviously not
the case as the correlation between pepsin resistance and allergenicity
has not been fully investigated in its own right.[17]

There is also the potential for Codex to use the some to ignore the
many, i.e. actually using pepsin resistance testing to claim that if a
substance has no pepsin resistance, then it is not a potential allergen.

In the end, the Codex position on GM Micro-Organisms and the potential
safety implications of these organisms is yet more example of Codex’s
complete and intentional obfuscation of the relevant scientific data. In
cases where the science supports Codex’s position, the science is
touted at every available opportunity. When it does not, the science is
ignored.

Source:-
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/codex-alimentarius-and-gm-food_22.html